foamy

Just dealt with Wayne. What a pleasant, helpful gentleman. Good prices too. I see why you reccommend his business.

By the way, very nice stable of bicycles.

nun

So you could argue that shorter seat stems are stiffer too

staehpj1

They absolutely are, but I never found possible flexibility there to cause any handling or load carrying problems for me at least. The time that I have seen frame flexing is standing on short climbs and I have not seen much of that on my newer bikes, which may or may not be related to the fact that they are smaller frames.

cyccommute 

It's a little stiff without a load but all of my bikes are aluminum so I used to that anyway. It's not as plush as my old steel touring bike but not that bad. And it's ability to handle a lot more then makes up for the stiffness unloaded

The bottle is a full length bottle. I've never had a problem with it hitting the wheel.

My only beef with the T800 is that there is a slight problem with toe overlap on the wheel. On slow speed tight turns you can bump the tire with your foot. I'm used to it but it can be a little annoying.

vik 

Not necessarily. The seat post spec'd for a bike with 3" of exposed post can and should be thinner wall thickness than one that is spec'd for a bike with 7" of exposed seat post.

The more important questions are:

1) is there any noticeable flex?

2) is there any negative impact on how the bike rides?

If the answer is no to either question then some theoretical difference is irrelevant.

Personally I put a brook champion flyer on both my touring bikes - one with 2: of exposed seat post and the other with 7" of exposed seat post. I can't tell any difference.

bikeoutfit

Traditionally touring bikes had maybe 3 to 6 inches of post sticking out. The smaller post diameter on many older bikes could be wippy if sticking out too far. The older bikes had smaller diameter tubes as well, which contributed to the wip effect if the post was out to far. also, having a bit more post out offers more clearance over the top tube, which is nice on a touring bike to a point.

Sloping top tubes have changed all this. The reason for sloping top tubes is for manufacturers and stores to have to carry fewer sizes . . . period, IMHO. The problem with todays XS, S, M L & XL sizing, instead of 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 & say 65cm is wheelbase. With fewer sizes, using a sloping toptube and more slope in the seat tube, you can raise or lower the seat to fit, even get the distance to the handlebars right, but you can not change the wheelbase . . . a critcal part of bike handling.

In my opinion, if you want a properly fit and handling touring bike, these days you need a custom or something like a Co-Motion Americano: https://www.co-motion.com/singlemenu.html While certainly not cheap, these are possibly the finest touring bikes on the market. Bruce Gordon is another great touring bike. He slopes his tube a bit and has a high rize stem, but he keeps classic geometry and has many sizes so you can get the right wheelbase for a given size.

Dick Powell, www.outfittertours.com

ricohman

I disagree with this.
When I did my research and eventually bought my new Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 I found a variety of wheelbase sizes.
The wheelbase ranges from 1036mm to 1054mm in the 46.5, 50, 52.5, 55.5 and 57.5 frames.
Trek 520's also have many different wheelbase sizes.

cosmo starr

too much seat post out looks goooofy, but it doesnt matter as long as there is enough seat tube still in the frame.

Enthusiast

First off, I will agree with some of the posters (and Sheldon Brown) that the main reason for compact geometry frames and the longer seatposts that accompany them are do to the increased sizing flexibility and the fewer frame sizes manufacturers must make. There are definitely some other effects though. Here's an extreme example of a long seatpost:

My Gary Fisher mountain bike (similar to the one pictured) has about 16" of seatpost and seat tube extension once it was set up correctly. It looked extreme to me but I've been assured the frame was designed with this much extension in mind. The Marketing on this design is that it: 1. Weighs slightly less. (Maybe a dozen grams.) 2. More stand-over clearance (Definitely, but I tend to hit my groin on the stem riser, not the top tube, so its kinda moot.) 3. Lowered frame center of gravity for better handling. (Yeah right, that's noticeable...) 4. Better power transfer because of the smaller triangles. (I didn't notice a difference and doubt it's consequential.) 5. Better Shock absorbtion from the increased seatpost length. This one I did notice when I swapped frames (same parts) from a similar GF frame with maybe 5" less seatpost extension. When I hit a big bump on the trail while seated I could feel the seatpost flex. Kinda unnerving at first but I grew to like a frame that was just as stiff as any other when I was really pumping but had more give if I was ever caught off guard with my butt on the seat when a bump came. (I suppose a suspension seatpost or frame would accomplish the same thing but I like the low weight and simplicity of the long seatpost.)

All that applies to road and touring bikes as well. Take it for what you will, but IMHO differences in seat tube extension are inconsequential for bike ride characteristics in on-road applications but can make a noticeable difference in the off-road setting.

Cave

Yeah... but you have more rise on your stem than most stems allow, and the stems aren't short - so you can get that riding position with the size frame you have, or you could go 2cm bigger and have a shorter stem with less rise. If you have short legs (ahem) then a bigger frame with less seatpost showing may fit better due to the relatively longer top tube (expensive lesson learned by yours truly )

I think a bit of standover height is good, but as long as you can straddle the frame 2-3" of seatpost shouldn't be a problem on a tourer or other road bike with a low BB.

BigBlueToe

The most important consideration to me is comfort. The seat must be high enough to give my legs proper leverage. Once that is determined, I worry about the stretch to the bars and the amount I'm bent over when grabbing the bars. The amount of seatpost showing doesn't concern me (although I agree that if you have either too much or too little seatpost showing it may indicate that you bought the wrong size frame.)

A crucial factor for bike tourers, in my view, is the relationship between seat height and bar height. I had some problems with hand numbness after a two-week tour down the Oregon coast. It was only my left hand, but the numbness took about a month to completely disappear. I did some asking on this forum and decided to buy a taller stem, which raised the tops of my drop bars almost as high as my saddle - probably an inch lower. That pretty much cured my numbness problem.

I don't know about others, but I always suffer pain and discomfort in my hands, wrists, and forearms for the first two or three days of a tour. But it always goes away after that - it pretty much disappears completely. That's one reason I limit my mileage for the first few days. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

staehpj1

That is a blast from the past. What caused this thread to be revived after languishing for a year?

At least it is interesting to see that I haven't changed my mind on this issue.

chrispe

Like a couple other people have said if you can get the seat the right height, and the bars the right distance and height thats basically all that matters. I think the stiffness and weight and all of those other things they currently tell you are better about compact frames are pretty much imperceivable, especially for touring. I will say yes maybe the frames are lighter by a small amount, but you gain some of that back with the extra foot of seat post, and also if you need a longer or higher stem that adds a bit back. Also does this matter unless your racing? I would say probably not. Maybe the thing about the seat post bending is, but thats not the frame. If you haven't read Rivendell's article on this thats basically what I agree with, but everyone has their own opinion.

staehpj1

I try very hard to not agree with anything they say So far this has stood me well. I do like to use their frame sizing chart, but I drop two or three sizes.

Enthusiast

I guess it was my fault for resurrecting this old thread. I really couldn't tell you how I stumbled upon it. Um...Happy New Year!

staehpj1

No problem, I just thought it was odd when it suddenly popped back up.

wrk101

That thing the seat is attached to the frame with = seat post.

That thing that connects the handlebars to the frame = stem.

pacificaslim

I've heard this "fewer sizes" thing before but wasn't it already common to see only four or five frame sizes from the mass-producers (i.e. non-custom) well before the compact geometry came in? I have an '85 trek 600 and the sizes available were 19", 21", 22.5", 24", and 25.5". The same year, Cannondale was offering their racing frames in like 8 sizes, but only four sizes each for their touring and mountain bikes.